Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

My Latest Gun Piece:

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by BADUNAME4, Jul 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    Thanks for any critique:

    It's Not About Guns

    The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. What does that mean? Why is it important?
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” “Militia” refers to “all able bodied men”. “People” as it also appears everywhere else in the Constitution refers to “us”. And “shall not be infringed” means “shall not be infringed”.
    We all want the same thing; that is, safety and our continued way of life. There are three types of controllers:
    1. Those who are misinformed who think that they’re doing the right thing.
    2. Those who project their own fears of what they would do with a firearm if they had one. And
    3. Politicians who use gun-control to scare people into voting a certain way.
    So where did this all start? After all, a few decades ago we could all buy a handgun from the Sears catalog and see an episode of “Leave it to Beaver” with Beaver handling firearms with his girlfriend’s father. Modern day gun-control began with the assassinations and inner city riots of the 1960’s. Clearly, these incidents had absolutely nothing to do with the law-abiding gun owner, but those concerned with politics over fact and logic immediately set out to take firearms away from those who didn’t do it (as an easy measure to cover up their own failed policies).
    Continued efforts to undermine the Second Amendment threaten the core concept of liberty. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn’t about guns – it’s about our inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Millions of Americans see the right to protect themselves and their families as their single most important civil right (whether they exercise that right or not).
    Additionally (and ultimately), the Second Amendment keeps hostile foreign forces foreign and keeps our government from becoming hostile.
    Our Founding Fathers understood this when they drafted The Constitution. Every article and Amendment is crucial. Our Founders conducted a grand experiment to create the most fertile environment possible for the human spirit to flourish. They suggested that we were all born with certain inalienable rights and the Second Amendment is their ultimate safeguard.
    The Constitution doesn’t give us these rights. We already have them. The Constitution just ensures that our federal government can’t take them away. There was significant opposition to The Constitution over 200 years ago as probably the same ratio of people then as today were afraid of the personal responsibility that freedom requires.
    What would happen if our Constitution does erode?
    The 1920’s German economy was in ruins and several political parties were jockeying for position. Germany began with gun registration in 1928 as one of the “for the good of the people” measures. Hitler then followed up with total gun confiscation as a prelude to the Holocaust. 21 million non-combatants were killed as a result. Despite having one of the most powerful armies in the world, the Nazis still feared the civilian ownership of firearms along with their profound disdain for people who think for themselves. The Holocaust would not have happened were it not for gun-control and all the while, many victims said, “This can’t happen here. We’re Germans first.”.
    Hitler’s experiment was to eliminate the human spirit in favor of total obedience while our Founding Fathers’ experiment was to unleash the full potential of the human spirit. The results speak for themselves. It’s important to note that similar evil exists today in many parts of the world and that those oppressed are essentially no different than you or I. You will see the same exact human spirit in them that you see when you look in the mirror.
    Many would argue that our rights come from God. Jewish law says that “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.” Roman Catholic doctrine says that “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.” And Protestant doctrine says that an “Individual has personal and unalienable right to self defense, even against government.”.
    People are inherently good. That given the choice between good and evil, most will choose good. Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people in a free society. It gets much worse, though, as freedoms disappear.
    Gun-control laws ignore intent in that they are aimed at those who haven’t done anything morally wrong. Such laws proclaim the moral content of one’s actions to be irrelevant. This suggests that character isn’t all that important, that understanding the difference between right and wrong doesn’t matter and that it’s more important to follow orders than to act responsibly and ethically.
    A state that deprives its law-abiding citizens with the means of self defense is itself a barbaric accomplice to violent crime. A government that does not trust its citizens with the right to keep and bear arms is itself not worthy of trust. And no government possesses moral judgment that is superior to that of the people.
    The fact is that our freedom is not dependent on how criminals behave. Guns contain no independent power to cause results apart from our decisions, character and purpose. As a matter of fact, 10 out of 10 criminals favor gun-control because restricting our 2nd Amendment rights gives them greater predatory confidence.
    Gun-control laws are only honored by the law-abiding. Such laws feed the black market and have a direct effect on an increase in crime. Law-abiding citizens tend to remain so even after they’re armed, but I think we can all agree to punish those who commit crimes and not those who obey the law.
    People’s views on guns usually indicate their views on personal freedom. The armed citizen is the ultimate right of a free people and no one who looks to government to solve their problems can call themselves free. Fact and logic would indicate that disarming the law-abiding does not create a safe society.
    So, yes, the Second Amendment is as relevant today as it was over 200 years ago, if not more so. The Second Amendment isn’t only personal security; it’s also Homeland Security.
    It’s my opinion that a raped and strangled woman isn’t necessarily morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun in her hand and a dead rapist at her feet. I understand that firearm ownership is a threat to a utopian illusion that doesn’t exist, but I don’t understand why the “civilized elite” distrusts citizens more than they fear murderers. It does make sense, though, that the 2nd Amendment is a threat to those with oppressive beliefs.
    America was founded on the principles of personal responsibility, accountability and self reliance and hasn’t remained free because of delusional activists who view themselves as special people who know what’s best for everyone else.
    Giving up the right to arms is a mistake that a free people get to make only once.
     
  2. J-Bar

    J-Bar Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,571
    Location:
    Springfield, MO
    May I ask where you intend to use this? Is it an outline for a speech you will be giving, or for publication?
     
  3. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    It'll be in a publication on Thursday.
     
  4. Single Action Six

    Single Action Six Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    You Might Want To Think About..

    .. Breaking up your one big paragraph of 1,178 words to several smaller ones. I started to read your post, but after the third time of getting lost trying to re-find where I had left off :banghead: , I gave it up for a lost cause.

    Single Action Six
     
  5. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    Apologies. I'm not yet completely down with the whole copy & paste thing and it'll look much better when professionally layed out.
    Thanks for trying, though. I'll post a link later on in the week.
     
  6. Single Action Six

    Single Action Six Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Congratulations On Being Published..

    Am looking forward to reading it.. and to many more in the future.

    Single Action Six
     
  7. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2007
    Messages:
    4,524
    You counted all those words?
     
  8. Panzercat

    Panzercat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    971
    Your latest gun piece needs paragraphs and line breaks.
     
  9. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    OK. Stop it. Stop it right now.

    :)
     
  10. Nushif

    Nushif Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,082
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    Interesting piece. Here's some of the stuff I saw:


    Some folks might have issue with your phrasing here.

    While it did originally mean exactly that, these womenfolk (I kid!) want to be included, too. I'd probably put something down like “Militia” refers to “all able bodied men (the inclusive term)” or simply rephrase it so that the centerpiece of this particular argument is less gender specific in terms of language.

    Essentially what you're doing is calling anyone who doesn't agree with you in these three things either mentally unstable or control freaks. While this may very well be what you're trying to do, it rarely garners a response that favorable to what you're trying to do. although I should probably clarify now that I am working under the assumption that you are indeed not preaching to the choir and you are reaching out to the fence sitters.
    While at heart there is a core of good argument here in this paragraph, it is laden with all kinds of personal attacks. One being that anyone who wouldn't fully support what you claim to be our "way of life" is by default one of these three rather unflattering things.

    While gun control got a lot of ammo with these periods of time gun control was being exercised long before that. If I recall correct one poster on here is usually very adamant about gun control initially being used as a tool to support racism. I frankly don't know how much merit there is to that, since I haven't studied racism all that much, but he's not alone in this belief.

    A very good point to make. And probably one of our most watertight arguments to make. I'd very, very much build this one up more. Simply explaining it as "fact" or "opinion" isn't enough to convince someone, but to lead the reader through the transition and differences here between the average lawful gun owner and illegal usage of firearms is paramount in this argument.

    The terms "fact," "logic" and "truth" are very, very dangerous to throw around. The second part about how you dislike their other policies sadly has no bearing on the 2A issues at hand. It is usually best to avoid dragging any other topics into the discussion of politics, so as to avoid diversionary feelings on the subject.

    The bolded part here is spot on. However, the pursuit of happiness and liberty can indeed be done unarmed as well. Not in our cases, as we do love our firearms and I would be a much less happy person without them, but this is not a universal feeling. Not to mention the term "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has gotten so many meanings attached to it in the mean time it's not really anymore than a catch phrase used in commercials and used rhetorically. Going at this from the angle that individual possession of firearms (or more accurately the latest in personal weaponry) is indeed a major factor in continuing one's right to life is a great idea. I'd expound on this one a bit further.

    We can not objectively know what the founding fathers wanted. As a matter of fact, some of the things they wanted are downright against what we modern people would call "the human spirit." As such when talking to folks in the middle, especially those of us who are not as inclined to believe as we do I try not to dredge up the image of these glorious nigh angelic fathers of our proud nation whose bene- you get my drift? >.O

    You're going to be hard pressed finding anyone of any particular political, ethical or moral persuasion that will argue against this. Definitely something good to have here.

    Using any kind of reference of Hitler is a very dicey game. The bolded part is neither here nor there ... as in, this can't be proven. It is probably not a "fact" or true. I'd definitely leave both the hitler reference out of this one. >.< (Especially if this will be published online as well. there is that one pesky rule, after all.)

    In historians circles they don't. In European circles they don't. Not even in military circles has gun control entered the picture when discussing how WWI and II were won.

    Good for arguing to a faithful crowd, but can horribly backfire if you're dealing with those less inclined to faith. No clue where this is going, so I don't know if that's intentionally in there or not. 8)

    There is a very distinct difference between morals and ethics. I'd advise you to make sure you're using the one you intend to. 8)

    Very, very powerful line, you could argue here more strongly that any crime that happened because the state disarmed a people fall squarely on their shoulders of the state, definitely build this argument.

    Yes. Again a cornerstone of a truly watertight argument for the second amendment and private weapon ownership. Need more of this. 8)

    Sadly, they don't. Correlation and causation are different. It's a very polarizing statement to make and any 0/1 arguments are a slippery slope. Again, I am assuming you're reaching out to the fence sitters though and not encouraging people who already believe.

    Dangerous words there. "Fact." "Logic." I understand your writing rather passionate at this point, but there are a lot of people accepting stuff as fact which is indeed not factually true, and none of us are immune to this.

    There we go. Definitely expound on this one more. A very good point to make, especially to a pacifist. There is a Ghandi line somewhere, too, and one from the Buddha about self defense, in which self defense is seen as something very natural from very smartlike pacifists.

    Ouch. Very polarizing. I suggest less inflammatory rhetoric here.

    This is more a statement of your personal opinions and less a support for the second amendment. The founding fathers themselves were probably called something akin to "delusional activists" in their own time and a lot of very staunch pro-2A folks are just that, themselves. This is also a healthy injection of an ancillary topic when it really comes down to gun control, as the central topic.

    Sooo, after going through it I would say that this is a decent write-up for sure, but I do think there is a bit of rhetoric and personal beliefs about other iossues as well, which are (in my opinion at least) rather damaging to some of the very lucid, clear and watertight arguments you are making. My advice would be to distance yourself from your argument and while you're writing it ... argue against it. If you truly can't find fault in your argument (while coming from the other side) you have an amazing argument.

    The previous post, brought to you by boredom, too much philosophy and the humanities in general, way too much writing and time.
     
  11. BADUNAME4

    BADUNAME4 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    450
    Many remarkably good points. Thanks for taking the time. It's kinda too late to make any changes at this point, but I could maybe refine it for later use in another venue using your points as a guide. Very much appreciated and thanks again.
     
  12. olafhardtB

    olafhardtB Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    386
    Fear

    I quit the NRA because it does so much to prey on our fears. Fear is a major force of life today. Insurance, law, religion, financial planning and deodorant industries are cautioning us of the falling skies. There is a difference beyween fear and discretian. I think we live in great times in a great world. I have lost my house to forclosure triggered by unemployment. lost my belongings in a flood and am seriously disabled. The sun rose this morning. I am not criticising your writing for trying to scare me. However, this is not Germany between the wars. Read the above criticisms, they are petty good. I think you use way too many words. In the future before you express something as fact ask yourself, "How do I know this"? Truly creditable sources are few and far between.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page